Jump to content
The World News Media

Noble Berean

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    186

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Noble Berean

  1. Noble Berean
    I don't get what you mean. The GB is unable to see into the future. Jesus plainly stated that no man can know the day or the hour of his presence. The GB should have never promoted end dates to begin with. Then, we wouldn't need these perpetual "refinements" which only create confusion and disillusionment. It was presumptuous on their part to think they could know God's timetable. The WT keeps spinning new stories to maintain credibility and give people a sense of urgency. They can't openly acknowledge that the credibility for 1914 is waning as the years progress, so they pacify JWs with a theory that holds onto 1914 but allows for more time. Don't you think it's troubling that for a century the WT believed that one group would survive till Armageddon? There's was no denying that. To suggest otherwise was apostasy! Now, there's two overlapping groups. There's essentially no Biblical evidence for this new theory, but it buys the GB more time while also maintaining a sense of urgency. And the change is met with applause and everyone accepts it (because they have to). When that second groups dies off, another "refinement" will occur and everyone will applause and accept it. And we repeat this cycle indefinitely. So, I believe the GB is more focused on preserving its credibility than Biblical truth.
  2. Noble Berean
    I am sorry but you are incorrect on this, James. Please look up involuntary hypnosis online. You will find plenty of examples. People have gone to jail over it. It's a very scary thing.
  3. Noble Berean
    I wouldn't
  4. Noble Berean
    That's horrible. I can assure you that many JWs would not do something that insensitive.
  5. Noble Berean
    Just another attempt to demonize any form of Christianity by the media.
  6. Noble Berean
    I get it. You don't agree with child baptism. I don't either. However, whatever criticisms I have of the org...I will never regret my dedication to Jehovah God.
  7. Noble Berean
    That's really the crux of all the problems with the organization. Rank-and-file JWs do not have the right to question any doctrines--even with Biblical support. Only the GB can correctly interpret the Bible. Only the GB can make "refinements" in doctrine. If we have a disagreement with a doctrine, we must quietly wait with the hope that it might get changed someday. A Governing Body taking the lead is not a bad thing. It keeps our organization...organized. But the Governing Body has no external auditor to scrutinize its ideas. The Bible should be that external auditor, but the Bible and the GB are intertwined. The Bible can't stand apart from the GB. Only the GB's interpretations of Scriptures are correct. Therefore, they can always discern the Bible in a way that supports the status quo. I believe that's the case with the "two overlapping generations" theory. For decades, the organization said the generation was one group that saw Jesus' presence in 1914--it was apostasy to suggest otherwise. It's clear now that that idea was wrong. I guess a combination of ego and a fear of losing credibility means the GB won't let go of 1914 and the generation. So, they force the square peg in a round hole. They use weak Biblical evidence to make the old idea "work" while maintaining a sense of urgency (the second group is older now so we must be close!!). It's not about a Bible interpretation that makes the most sense anymore. It's about maintaining the facade that the org knows what it's doing and that we are still on the threshold of the new system. No doubt in a few decades (if this system persists) another "refinement" will come along that will have the same purpose (wash, rinse, repeat). If you type random numbers in a keypad it may eventually unlock, and eventually this system will end. So, if the org exists at that time of the end maybe they can say they were right to keep us on the edge--even if the evidence was incorrect. (I believe they use this justification currently in God's Kingdom Rules! paraphrasing from memory: "We were wrong on this but it kept everyone zealous at that time.")
  8. Noble Berean
    Nice idea, but how do you have one without the other? If you shun, it's always going to be emotional blackmail.
  9. Noble Berean
    Knowing the role of the Governing Body should help us to understand how to treat them. This was brought up in another thread, but it seems relevant here. In the first century, the order of authority was apostles then prophets (1 Cor 12:28). It seems to me that the prophets and apostles checked each other so that no one group became too powerful in the first century. They both had different but equally important roles to fulfill: the apostles took the lead over the congregation and the prophets were spiritual guides. The prophets were necessary to "fill in the gaps" of an incomplete Bible, but today we have a complete Bible. So, prophets are unnecessary. However, the GB asserts that Bible discernment is unsuccessful without their interpretations of it. In other words, the Bible alone is insufficient--we need the GB to "fill in the gaps." So, the GB acts likes the apostles by taking the lead and prophets by being exclusive interpreters of the Bible. This premise seems flawed to me. The Bible should stand alone as a separate entity. It shouldn't be intertwined with the GB, because the Bible should act as an external auditor for the GB's actions. At present, by being "guardians of doctrine" the GB can make the Bible fit their method of operation. The Bible is not a rigid thing and this can be taken advantage of. So while I respect the Governing Body for taking the lead, I feel that they have too much unchecked authority, and this could set a bad precedent for the future. The GB should be actively checked by the Bible and any student of the Bible.
  10. Noble Berean
    It's interesting that apostles (leaders) and prophets (spiritual guides) were separate roles in the first century. It seemed odd to me that God didn't give the apostles both leadership and prophecy roles, but the more I reflect the more it makes sense. In the United States government, the three branches check one another so that no one gets too powerful. Perhaps, the prophets and apostles checked each other so that no one became too dominating. There's a similar relationship between Kings and prophets in ancient Israel. While the prophets had to respect the authority of those taking the lead, God selected prophets to guide the spiritual path of his people. So, there's an apparent logic to separating leadership from spiritual direction. Today, the Bible fulfills the role of the prophets in the first century, and I believe it should act as the check for anyone taking the lead today. While humans prophets of the past could be conversed with to clarify spiritual direction, the Bible is a one-way conversation. We do our best to interpret what we have, but the Bible is not a black-and-white rule book and can be discerned differently from person-to-person (as made evident by the multitude of Christian denominations). In the WT organization, the Bible is not a distinct entity from the GB, because they claim to be the only ones that can properly interpret the Bible. You can't get the "truth" from the Bible without the GB. So, there is little room for personal conscience on scriptural interpretation. In a nutshell, the GB claims both leadership and doctrinal interpretation roles, so there's a lot of unchecked authority there. Bible history indicates that Jehovah God separated roles, because he understood human nature and had a concern of authority abuse. I believe one GB member remarked that JWs won't blindly follow direction that violates the Bible, but did he seriously reflect on that? Of course the Bible does act as a limit in some ways--I'm not suggesting JWs would blow a building up if a GB member said to do that. However, JWs have followed incorrect direction in the past that later was later "refined". And while the Council of Jerusalem comparison overall seems appropriate for the GB today, I question whether they exerted the same control we see in the WT organization. We only have one recorded event in the Bible where the first century Christian governing body intervened and made a decree. It was an emergency situation when there was discord in the Christian community. And the goal of the decree was to put less burdens on Christians rather than more.
  11. Noble Berean
    There were apostles and prophets in the first century (Ephesians 2:20). We know there are no prophets today, so are there still apostles? Can you have one and not the other?
  12. Noble Berean
    We don't have prophets today, so what Biblical reference point do we use to understand how to view the GB?
  13. Noble Berean
    Call me a skeptic, but how can Jehovah God honestly expect JWs to put GB and Moses on the same level? Moses was a prophet, the GB is not. God spoke to Moses and his face glowed like the sun. God has never spoken to the GB. God used Moses to perform miracles. He parted the Red Sea with God's holy spirit. He healed the sick with the bronze serpent. There was a cloud pillar representing God that followed the Jews in the wilderness. Their souls never wore out. God left no doubt in the mind of the Jews that Moses was divinely appointed and had authority. Dissent was ridiculous. What do we have? The GB has a history of missteps in direction, yet they continue to expect unquestioned loyalty.
  14. Noble Berean
    How so? It may be an extreme example, but the point remains that these Kings were appointed by God, yet God punished those who followed the King into false worship. So, this idea that we should follow no matter what seems to conflict with the example of ancient Israel. Apparently God does expect us to exercise our own independent conscience at times and not just be unified, unified, unified. Sorry I am a newbie here.
  15. Noble Berean
    "Corrected"? Is that how it went @bruceq? Or did Jehovah God not punish the Israelites (death and enslavement) for following along with the corruption of their leaders? What you're describing is how the false empire of Christendom arose. Christendom may be miles from pure worship now, but it started off as pure Christian worship. It took many years for something pure to become rife with paganism and corruption. Men put themselves into positions of authority (clergy) and could not be questioned under threat of excommunication. This vacuum of free discussion led to false ideas like the Trinity and Hellfire becoming entrenched. The Church became tyrannical and many had to flee Europe for their religious views. "Truth" arose in America because people had more freedom to speak out and question the false narrative of the Church. Now there is another vacuum of free discussion in the JW religion, and I have no doubts that in time the religion will become like another Church.
  16. Noble Berean
    Hi again. You really didn't address my comments about the Israelite Kings who disobeyed God. Doesn't that indicate that just b/c someone is taking the lead over God's people that does not mean they are doing the correct things? Jehovah God did punish his chosen nation...he didn't spare the followers b/c of the corruption of the leaders. So, why today should we follow without question? Will God care on his judgment day that we just followed along or will he care that we did right according to our own conscience? (And I'm not suggesting the GB is on par with those wicked kings, but I'm just trying to make a point.) You brought a good point...what Biblical reference point do we use to know how to treat the GB? You suggest Moses is the right comparison, but what about the first century Christian Governing Body as a comparison? Wasn't the apostle Peter (one of the men taking the lead) openly chastised for avoiding the uncircumcised gentiles? Can't imagine any open criticism of the GB today. There's very little info about this first-century group...in fact there's 1 recorded event of the GB intervening on the matter of circumcision. And let me be clear what I'm not saying. I am not suggesting anyone split off or take on the GB's role. I feel that it's appropriate for a GB to exist in God's organization. But is it appropriate that all JWs be in 100% agreement with the GB's direction under threat of shunning? Is their scriptural basis for that kind of authority on scriptural interpretation? What's most important: unity or personal scriptural truth? If your Bible based conscience does not harmonize with the group does that make you an "apostate"?
  17. Noble Berean
    Hi @bruceq with the greatest respect...is the attitude of always accepting everything the organization says in harmony with the Bible? Didn't the leaders of God's chosen nation of Israel do bad things? Were the Israelites given a free pass when their leaders gave incorrect direction? Or were they punished along with the leaders? Isn't there evidence that God expects individuals to discern what's right/wrong on their own and not just follow along with the group?
  18. Noble Berean
    I'm going to venture he's referring to 1914 being the start of The Great War (WWI)?
  19. Noble Berean
    Well, Jehovah's Witnesses are not young earth creationists. JWs believe that animals could have lived on the earth for millions of years before humans ever came onto the scene. It is entirely possible that humans and dinosaurs never coexisted and weren't meant to coexist by the Creator. Dinosaurs performed a necessary function in keeping the ecosystem stable when the earth was tropical and covered in plants. We benefit now from that era of tropical plant cover with oil deposits in the earth.
  20. Noble Berean
    I think humans did find fossils but they misinterpreted them as dragons or other beasts.
  21. Noble Berean
    Your comment reminded me of how Br. Geoffrey Jackson told a prosecutor at the ARC that it would be presumptuous for the GB to claim it is God's sole channel. They back down under public scrutiny, because they realize how messed up and cultish it sounds.
  22. Noble Berean
    I completely understand why a Christian would refuse a blood transfusion, but I can also understand why a Christian would take one in an emergency life-or-death scenario. We are only human and weak, and it seems very unloving to disfellowship someone if they take a transfusion out of fear for their life. At the end of the day, isn't this choice between a Christian and Jehovah God? Is it really necessary for the organization to meddle in this private medical choice? I can understand why the organization wouldn't endorse transfusions, but I have always felt it should be a conscience matter. Furthermore, isn't there some scriptural precedent for one law trumping another? I have always felt like Jehovah God was balanced about the law, but the organization's stance on transfusions is very extreme. The Bible accounts that come to mind are when David ate the loaves in the temple or when Jesus Christ healed a man on the Sabbath. Shouldn't love for our brothers trump rule following?
  23. Noble Berean
    What does "light getting brighter' even mean? Would Jehovah God send inaccurate or incomplete information to his slave ? Or is it just an attempt to shift away accountability for mistakes? The Governing Body is not just some politician. It holds itself on a moral pedestal as God's channel. So when they make major mistakes they should apologize. It's the very least they could do. But how can you have it both ways? How can you clearly state a message is fallible but demand unquestioned obedience to that same message?
  24. Noble Berean
    Well, I believe the organization could move toward a more balanced and less dogmatic direction. I feel like there's a lot more gray area in the Bible than the organization wants to let on. I don't think it would hurt for the GB to apologize for some of its missteps. I can't give a clear answer on how to make the organization better. I can only point out the things that aren't working right now.
  25. Noble Berean
    Correct, Jehovah God has used imperfect men to take the lead, and I am not suggesting a Governing Body shouldn't exist or that we shouldn't strive to follow along with them. My concern is the lack of personal Christian freedom when it comes to Bible interpretation under threat of shunning. What is more important to Jehovah God: organizational unity or personal Bible-based conscience? It's a sticky situation to contemplate. Obviously, the organization puts much greater emphasis on unity, but does that always work out well? For instance, let's say hypothetically after much Bible research I came to a differing view on a Watchtower doctrine. If my differing views were exposed, I would probably get disfellowshipped. However, what if that doctrine was later revised by the Governing Body and now agreed with my personal views? This has happened before. So, who is in the wrong in this situation? Should we just follow along with a direction even if it violates our own Bible-based conscience? What scriptural basis does the Governing Body have to be the special ones that are definitive interpreters of scripture? And furthermore, why does the GB get a free pass when they get things wrong? Because there is a history of that. Since the standards are pretty strict on rank-and-file JWs, it would seem like a double-standard if they didn't have consequences for teaching incorrect ideas to millions of others. Wouldn't they as suppliers of spiritual food be held to a much higher standard than anyone else?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.